Friday, March 05, 2010

"..they heard shots. They said she then 'calmly walked away.'"

A 45-year-old woman, charged with ending a domestic dispute by killing her 26-year-old husband of five days, is a registered lobbyist for a group fighting domestic violence.

Arelisha Bridges was ordered held without bond in the Fulton County Jail. She is scheduled for a preliminary hearing later this month on charges of felony murder, murder, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

Officials said Bridges claimed she was unemployed. But records show she is a lobbyist for an organization called the National Declaration for Domestic Violence Order; its Web site says the group is pushing legislation to create a database of those convicted of sex crimes or domestic abuse.

Witnesses told police that Bridges was wearing a nightgown and a shower cap as she argued with Rankins on the sidewalk on North Avenue near West Peachtree Street around 10:45 p.m. Monday.

And moments later, witnesses said, they heard shots. They said she then "calmly walked away...."

Bridges' group isn't among the prominent domestic violence lobbying groups in Georgia, said Kirsten Rambo, the executive director of the Georgia Commission on Family Violence.

"This is the first I've heard about that organization," Rambo said. "I certainly couldn't say if they were legitimate or not," she said, adding, "It's certainly a new name to me."

I thought Rambo's explanation was a little funny, if not telling of where she stands. It's as if she's saying, "if a woman kills her husband and is not part of a prominent domestic violence lobbying group, it doesn't really count then, does it?" Or at least she is trying to distance herself and her organization from this violent act.

These sexist lobbying groups need to open their minds to the fact that women kill and injure men and that their lack of concern allows it to flourish. Perhaps, like the gem in the article who killed her husband, when a man is hurt or killed, they are unconcerned and "calmly walk away."

Though I loathe lobbyists and activists, I'm inclined to give this Rambo woman the benefit of the doubt. Based on what Dr Helen has quoted, it sounds like a reporter called this woman up to ask if they had ever heard of the perpetrator and whether she was a big name in the activism community. This is a good sign of journalistic due diligence. It's not unreasonable for her to distance herself - it's not her group affiliated with the murder.

However, Rambo and everyone else should realize that when you run an organization dedicated to the premise that men are evil and dangerous, you are likely to have a twisted view of social relations that rationalizes killing.

I'm going to go with a simpler explanation: this woman was bat-sh** crazy and invented whatever rationalization she needed to blow this guy away. If it wasn't whatever it was it would have been something else.

I'm waiting for Slate's Emily Bazelon to run an article rationalizing the killing, as she did blaming "workplace discrimination" with Amy Bishop.

And I do blame Rambo, this was a perfect time to do her job and decry domestic violence, or in this case, homicide. If she does not, then she looks like a fraud who is only interested in the women are abused narrative.

Is it just me, or are women murderers really cold bitches? I openly concede it may be the reporting; that stories about women doing heinous things and then being very calm afterward catches reporters' eyes, but perhaps this is the norm.

From what I've observed, women full of wrath are generally scarily calm and extremely cruel. And the more calm they are, the more cruel they are. (Something I've confirmed with wife, daughters and several female friends. Years ago in college, I observed that men fight it out or ignore each other; women sometimes get catty, but usually just get even in very shocking, and surprisingly calm, ways. I have seen women do mean things to each other that I've NEVER seen men do.)

Uh, there is an entire show on a cable network that is entirely dedicated to women who do this. It's called "Snapped". It's about women who just "Snap" and kill men for whatever reason. Some men are highlighted, but it's mostly women.

my girlfriend`s daughter likes to get guys to fight over her, including her brother. thankfully i`ve been able to point out her pattern of behaviour to him so that he won`t get stabbed in a club coming to her "defence".

her transactional style is technically mild to medium, so her brother probably wasn`t risking much more than bruises and minor cuts, but recently she`s been going to afro clubs where the ethnic mix is more volatile.

she punched an east indian guy who became agressive while they were all dancing and shoved him down and drew her brother into the fray.

i warned him after that, that her behaviour was too confrontational for that kind of club, and that people get stabbed or worse when ethnicity mixes with sexual tension.

the next day she was re-living the drama like it was a movie, giving us all blow-by-blow accounts of the fight....and it became clear that she had enticed the boy into dancing with the group only to play uproar when he touched her.

this is the same girl that punched a bouncer when he wouldn`t let her and her hockey friends into a club because they were under-age. one of her friends, who was visiting from florida, still has an outstanding warrant for assualt against her if she returns.

these girls think they are absolutely in the right to punch guys for little provocation, and to hear her re-tell these stories is a little scary when she has this glow to her when she talks.

I thought Rambo's explanation was a little funny, if not telling of where she stands. It's as if she's saying, "if a woman kills her husband and is not part of a prominent domestic violence lobbying group, it doesn't really count then, does it?" Or at least she is trying to distance herself and her organization from this violent act.

Could Bridges's organization be a front for astroturfing purposes? The Left in general is notorious for this tactic of creating hundreds or even thousands of phony front groups to create the illusion of broad-based grass-roots support for their cause. Another advantage this conveys is that if one of these groups somehow falls into ill repute, the others still have plausible deniability. That sounds suspiciously like what is going on here.

Another comment on dr alistair's post - I'll make a gross generalization, but I've experienced that the bulk of young men get a kick out of displaying dominance: bullying, competition, machismo. This is enhanced when these men are around each other, and one-upping becomes serious business.

Meanwhile, the bulk of young women get a kick out of being the center of attention, no matter what the causus belli. Ergo you will see teen and twentysomething girls slutting up to get catcalls from the boys, inducing boyfriends to get jealous and brawl with other men, showing off boyfriends (which drives them to pick showoff material instead of good matches), showing off material largesse (which they almost never pay for themselves) to other girls, and playing manipulative drama games.

Bacon - I read that post a while back when you cited it here. It's become a law of natural society that no matter what an ape a man might be, there's always a woman turned on by his behavior willing to defend him by excusing it.

As a man of reason, I have no choice but to see it as social Darwinism - people attracted to that kind of violent sociopath will be either eliminated from the gene pool from violence, or kept from polite society due to the social dysfunction.

Women's magazines love to say that a man's brain is in his pants, but I see plenty of women making decisions with their gina.

I just read on Marky Mark's blog a great quote about how feminists are adamant that women can weather the perils of war as good as any man (because they are the same), yet these same feminists think it absurd that a women can ever pose a threat of physical violence to men (because they are different). (hat tip: markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com).

I've long found it amusing that feminists who are constantly argue that men and women are the same are usually the ones lobbying for laws, handouts, protections, and wealth redistribution based on the difference.

True. It's mind-boggling to try to explain in rational terms. Yet, when you look at it in terms of what feminists want (not what they say they want) it makes perfect sense: they want women to have options and men to have obligations.

There's a similar, even weirder effect than that which appears to transcend feminism. You could boil it down to "women in general don't even really know what they want." While this can certainly be true for men - it's called the arrival paradox - I actually just heard this on a radio clip last night - a woman said she loved getting her way over her man, but wanted him to stand up for himself and resist more (and take control in the bedroom), but when he did that she nagged him more to get what she wanted, because she liked getting her way, but then she didn't respect him as much, and then...

It was a big circle of paradox, like eating dessert for dinner. She got what she wanted, and then wanted to not get it.

I think feminists are super-pissed these days because for all their efforts to tame, feminize and program men to do their bidding, so many women (feminists included) still feel a visceral attraction to men who don't care what they think, don't take no for an answer and don't subjugate themselves.

In reality, it might mean that all of feminism is one big sh**-test to weed out the compliant men from the alpha-men who will lead women where they want to be led to. It's bizarre.

"my girlfriend`s daughter likes to get guys to fight over her, including her brother. thankfully i`ve been able to point out her pattern of behaviour to him so that he won`t get stabbed in a club coming to her "defence"."